Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.006019162 = product of:
  0.042134132 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
    0.006819073 = product of:
      0.02045722 = sum of:
        0.02045722 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02045722 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.025165197 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47

0.0029727998 = product of:
  0.041619197 = sum of:
    0.041619197 = weight(_text_:representation in 5641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041619197 = score(doc=5641,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.35945266 = fieldWeight in 5641, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5641)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

No matter how immutable a classification may seem, it is, after all, an artifact of the human imagination and functions in a particular place and time. The author describes her personal inquiry into classification as a knowledge-representation process. She traces her changing perspectives on how classifications should be viewed and evaluated by posing the following questions: 1) How does the classification process enable or constrain knowing about something or discovering something we did not already know?; 2) In what ways might we develop classifications that enhance our ability to discover meaningful information in the information stores that form a part of our scholarly as well as our everyday lives?; and 3) How might classifications mask or distort knowledge, and how might they serve to disenfranchise people and ideas? These questions are considered through a discussion of classification structures, personal classification, the link of classification to theory, everyday working classifications, translation of classifications, cognitive aspects, browsing, genres, warrant, and the difficulties of navigating complex ontological commitments. The through thread is the importance of context, because classifications can only be seen with respect to the human endeavors that generate them.

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 3481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=3481,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 3481, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3481)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Through its focus on the semantic, rather than the syntactic axis of bibliographic classification systems, Beghtol's 1986 article on four perspectives of warrant provides us with a set of conceptual tools that can be used to understand, analyze, evaluate and design any knowledge-representation system. In this way warrant, as a concept, joins the ranks of relevance as a pivotal notion, offering a lens for contextualizing the meanings and uses to which ever-evolving classifications are put. With reference to examples, this paper concludes by invoking Beghtol's warrant as a means for systematically evaluating how legacy and emerging classification systems measure up to their mandates. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity: concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems. In: Library resources and technical services. 30(1986), S.109-125.

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 3531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=3531,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 3531, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3531)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0025225044 = product of:
  0.03531506 = sum of:
    0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03531506 = score(doc=4811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

0.0021020873 = product of:
  0.02942922 = sum of:
    0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02942922 = score(doc=824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.025165197 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=824)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

We discuss the issues of resolving the information-retrieval problem in large digital collections through the identification and use of document genres. Explicit identification of genre seems particularly important for such collections because any search usually retrieves documents with a diversity of genres that are undifferentiated by obvious clues as to their identity. Also, because most genres are characterized by both form and purpose, identifying the genre of a document provides information as to the document's purpose and its fit to the user's situation, which can be otherwise difficult to assess. We begin by outlining the possible role of genre identification in the information-retrieval process. Our assumption is that genre identification would enhance searching, first because we know that topic alone is not enough to define an information problem and, second, because search results containing genre information would be more easily understandable. Next, we discuss how information professionals have traditionally tackled the issues of representing genre in settings where topical representation is the norm. Finally, we address the issues of studying the efficacy of identifying genre in large digital collections. Because genre is often an implicit notion, studying it in a systematic way presents many problems. We outline a research protocol that would provide guidance for identifying Web document genres, for observing how genre is used in searching and evaluating search results, and finally for representing and visualizing genres.